Translation of word salad please

[Imherefornow]

I genuinely want to understand why a feminist thinks that essentialising gender and obscuring sex is progressive. On twitter I was given this reply...

"Accepting& respecting diversity in expression of social constructs & intersects, oppressive hierarchies are more effectively challenged w greater potential to force power shifts, & is the basis of international human rights law.

Feminism is intersectional, or it isn't feminism."

My take on it is that by saying men who express 'woman' stereotypes are actualy women it dilutes what it means to be a woman and thus flips hierachies and expectations of intersects... Nope! Am utterly lost and this reply strikes me as abject nonsense.

However, I really would like to try and understand and would be grateful of a translation from those wiser than I

Nope.Load of bollocks.

Sex unlike race is not a social construct. Gender is yes, but it affects people's lives in real ways the way race does.

Does your friend think experessing diversity of race is fabulous too?

Also none of that has anything to with Int human rights laws.

"I don't have a coherent argument so I will throw this lot of blether at you and hope you stop asking difficult questions"

Hth

"experessing diversity of race is fabulous too"

As Rachel Dolezal does iyswim.

Are you missing off the end or the start? Despite the length it reads as though it is the begining or end of a thought.

Oh good! I'm ever so glad that someone agrees.

The linguistic acrobatics continues to astound me yet I can't help but try to unpick the logic

...''& is the basis of international human rights law.''

No it isnt. The basis of international human rights law is the argument that your rights end where mine begin, which is not supported by identity over biologically.
Also, that human rights are unconditional - and that is the actual basis for intersectionality as described by Dr Crenshaw.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberl%C3%A9_Williams_Crenshaw
''Crenshaw often refers to the case DeGraffenreid v. General Motors in writing, interviews, and lectures. In DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, a group of African American women argued they were receiving compound discrimination excluding them from employment opportunity. They contended that although women were eligible for office and secretarial jobs, in practice such positions only were offered to white women, barring African American women from seeking employment in the company. The courts weighed the allegations of race and gender discrimination separately, finding that the employment of African American male factory workers disproved racial discrimination, and the employment of white female office workers disproved gender discrimination. The court declined to consider compound discrimination, and dismissed the case.''

Nope! This was it and I thought the same and waited for more

Here is how the thread began

twitter.com/beccalamjig/status/982189863767162881?s=19

That's really interesting crow. I will go read up some more on that. Thanks

I think you nailed it Flavia!

I suck at posting on MN it doesn't work like twitter

Appologies

They are a Libfem who retweets Owen Jones.

Their 'feminism' doesn't include lesbians. Their point (whatever it was) is moot.

Nah im with you imhere

Made sense for the first few posts then it was word soup

Imherefornow Looking at that thread I'm not entirely convinced they are posting in good faith.

@ooffydarls
i don't see sex'= sexism

‏*@beccalamjig*
No.
"I don't see gender" = cis privilege

No. You are right crow.
I am nothing if not patient on twitter.
But I really can't help but want to understand why and how a female trans ally justifies this stance.

I get all the conditioned "be nice, inclusive' aka give way to what men want thing but when I get a bite that tries to rationalize it I am intrigued!

I can translate this bit for you:

"Feminism is intersectional, or it isn't feminism."

It means

"Feminism will include men, or else I'll get called a TERF"

Does it mean that if you mess with gender you upset the hierarchy where women are at the bottom and men at the top?

If so, truly messing with gender would do that.

Men doing half the housework, half the child rearing, half the taking care of the elderly. Women's biology having absolutely zero impact on the way they are treated.

That's messing with gender.

Clothes, make up, etc, denoting sex does nothing to mess with gender.

And pretending biology doesn't exist is pointless, and doesn't address the reasons why we have gender in the first place.

Ok! So have continued the thread and the meaning of the poster is that if ones biological sex is diluted to a point that it becomes meaningless then patriarchy will fail to have an inpact.

I kinda get the logic but obviously it vastly underestimates the impact that percieved biology has had and is having on females right now.

Disappearing sex categories fails to recognise structuresof oppression and is the absolute opposite of the internationally that she advocates.

I am. Confudulued

Also none of that has anything to with Int human rights laws.

That's what I thought. Complete non sequitur.

If biological sex becomes diluted so it's meaningless, how will people choose mates and procreate?

It also begs the question that if women's biological sex becomes meaningless, how will women's biology be accommodated in terms of health?

To be honest, she sounds daft.

Disappearing sex categories fails to recognise structuresof oppression and is the absolute opposite of the internationally that she advocates.

You're right, she's talking nonsense.

What it means is that they have co-opted the concept of Crenshaw's intersectionality, that examined the oppression of Black women, in order to claim that Feminism must be useful to men or it is worthless. That is the 5th rule of misogyny.

We should write the 10 rules of transactivism. Which would be basically the same but more Orwellian.

PomoBot there appears to be malfunctioning. I do basically speak their language (thanks, uni sociology lectures) and even so the first paragraph is nonsense.